(no subject)

[badstar]

Why must we have intelligent design and/or creationism taught in school biology classes?

Is "science" not generally stuff that can be observed tangibly and measured?

Is creationism and intelligent design not a myth- or at most a hypothesis?

How much does it really matter to the general public how the world originated?

Discuss.

Comments

[odalisques.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, the only subjects that belong in a science class are those that have been subjected to the scientific method--measured and proven in repeated objective experiments. Everything else is speculation--to be discussed as possibilities, in the context of future work that will put it into (or out of) the realm of fact, or else left in the domain of the humanities.

[smileydee.livejournal.com]

Intelligent design and creationism are not science. They don't explain anything, they aren't useful for making predictions, and they follow no recognized scientific methods. Their theories rely mainly on "it's hard for me to imagine how this happened so therefore it's magic".

The universe could have been created by an intelligent force, sure. But we can't measure that with science. What we can measure with science implies that the universe and the world are very, very old, and that life evolved. I guess God could have created the universe last Thursday and just made it seem like everything was really old, but we can't show that scientifically so therefore it has no place in a science class.

And besides, if we're going to teach Biblical creationism in science classes, why not other creation myths as well? They're just as based in science as any other creation myth so they have just as much right to be there.

How much does it really matter to the general public how the world originated?

To most people, it doesn't matter. But that's a poor reason for not teaching it. English literature doesn't matter to most people, nor does algebra or chemistry or world history. But we teach them because we value general knowledge and because it could spark a lifelong interest in somebody. The theory of evolution is very important in pretty much all the life sciences. It has real, practical uses. For instance, evolution predicts that bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics, so it allows us to explain and plan for that fact.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

I guess God could have created the universe last Thursday

Actually, it was Wednesday. didn't you get the memo? :-P

[smileydee.livejournal.com]

HEATHEN!

It was definitely a Thursday.

You're so going to hell.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

it was wednesday. and I already live there.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

well...work there.

[marilyth.livejournal.com]

I'm from Kansas (as is my mom and she's teaching there - or was) and we're ALL very surprised with the "evolution" decision! I always thought there was a separation between church and state. If I went to church I'd learn about creationism, then later make my own assessments based on scientific FACT! Which I did.

This whole intelligent design is just a fancy way for the state board to say, SHHHH we're gonna teach religion, but we aren't going to use the term God, to piss off any atheists.

What a crock of shit!

:)

[marilyth.livejournal.com]

We'll just have to give you another copy. And remember that coversheet for your TPS reports!!

Multiple Issues

[saratoga80.livejournal.com]

First off, asking any teacher to teach Evolution and Intelligent Design in the same class is silly. A biology teacher is unqualified to teach on philosophy and metaphysical items. There is almost always a wacky English or Social Studies teacher who can take on these subjects. I have no problem if its in a civics type class. An "open air" discussion of religion, philosophy and society probably would benefit us all. But teaching the two together? Counter productive.

>Is "science" not generally stuff that can be observed tangibly and measured?

Yes, science is based on experimental method: hypothesis, test design, test, evaluation, conclusion.

>Is creationism and intelligent design not a myth- or at most a hypothesis?
Hypothesis is part one of scientific method, Ergo, intelligent design perfectly in play for a science or philosophy class. *What* class is the question... Evolutionary biology is not the answer.

>How much does it really matter to the general public how the world originated?

When you are talking religion, you are asking the wrong question. If you asked how much does it matter in one's daily life how created the universe? The answer is little. However, how religion is discussed in an educational and civic framework does matter, and we're kidding ourselves if we think it doesn't or shouldn't.

And for the 8350th time, there is no such thing as "seaparation of church and state" in the constitution. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". the current line is roughly: you can say God, you can do various things in public purview, but no town can say "this is a Christian town". Religious displays are dependent on context: as part of a historical or general civic issue, religion is fine. If you suddenly have a big statue of Jesus and have a plaque with "Jesus built this town", then it's establishment of religion and unlawful.

Re: Multiple Issues

[resident-geek.livejournal.com]

And for the 8350th time, there is no such thing as "seaparation of church and state" in the constitution. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". the current line is roughly: you can say God, you can do various things in public purview, but no town can say "this is a Christian town". Religious displays are dependent on context: as part of a historical or general civic issue, religion is fine. If you suddenly have a big statue of Jesus and have a plaque with "Jesus built this town", then it's establishment of religion and unlawful.

This sounds like a correct assessment. Which is why I don't understand how folks can cry foul at the attempts to remove "under God" from the pledge, when it was Congress who put the law there.

This intelligent design bit is where my uncle, the USAF general, scares me. He's sharp, way sharper than I, knows very well the principles of science, and at the same time he's got no problem with shoving ID down our throats, because it's a "valid alternative viewpoint." I'm starting to suspect he's more Dominionist than he lets on...

Re: Multiple Issues

[fuego.livejournal.com]

And for the 8350th time, there is no such thing as "seaparation of church and state" in the constitution.

much as it would be nice if there was, I never used the phrase.

All that aside, yeah I pretty much agree.

Re: Multiple Issues

[fuego.livejournal.com]

yeah well...you KNOW this is a Christian Nation, or didn't you get the memo?

Okay, Uncle Diminionist General, valid aternative viewpoint. Great! You have your view I have mine.

My general view of the origin of the world is that it really doesn't matter much to me, and the Divine really isn't that worried that I'm not very concerned about it. It's interesting to consider sometimes. I kinda like the idea that the universe simply always has been...that maybe this is just another incarnation of an ever-existant universe. But that's just an idea to ponder. I'm a lot more concerned with the Now. And the What Is To Be.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

All hai the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

RAMEN!

Re: Multiple Issues

[fuego.livejournal.com]

i just realized you weren't talking to me on the "separation of church and state" thing.

actualy, kari never mentioned the constitution either, but in a way it doesn't matter where else it might be mentioned (the actual reference being a letter from jefferson to someone whose name i can't remember, no?)

[marilyth.livejournal.com]

LOL!!! Mat would love that one!! :)

Re: Multiple Issues

[saratoga80.livejournal.com]

If Congress put in "Under God" (which it did in the 1950s), Congress should remove it. If Congress reversed itself, that's the will of the elected people of the US. But barring clear unconstitutionality, the court has to keep a narrow brush, lets we blot out the religious framework of our society.

The difficulty has always been is that the US has a secular government, as it should, in the world's most religious nation. That's correct: 95% of Americans have some concept of a higher power, it could be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, etc. Of all nations who do not have a legally established religion (such as Iran), the US is the most religious. It is especially because we have a freedom of religion. Pagans may feel scorned by the Christian majority (and this is often the case), but I suggest trying paganism in Russia or Iran. Due to this, we've often made religious local laws, whether we admit or not. And they're not always Christian. In Kiryas Joel, NY, local laws are Judaic in nature. Religious groups can exempt themselves from Social Security system - the Mennonites and Amish are the chief examples, because the aged and infirm are cared for by their own. So, whether we want to or not, we have religion in our secular society. People don't leave their religion (or culture or color) at their doorstep, it influences what we say and do. The key is to know when to draw the line between individual choice and societal enforcement of what should be an individual's choice.

The letter you refer to by Jefferson is just that: a letter. In it he refers to the "unbreachable wall between church and state". However, what Jefferson wanted to avoid was the creation of anything resembling the Church of England. Rememeber, he wrote when he was ambassador to France nearing the time of their revolution - a time of immense intellectual creativity before Robespierre turned it into a bloodbath. Earlier, he had written the Declaration of Independence with the same mentality. The argument here is simply very different.

BTW, this issue is great.. keep it up everyone!

Re: Multiple Issues

[fuego.livejournal.com]

BTW, this issue is great.. keep it up everyone!

glad you like it.


Belief in a higher power does not necessarily constitute "religious"

Due to what we often make religious law?

The Amishnare exempt from SS, but I don't remember the Mennonites being also (Minor point of detail)

It's ridiculous to expect people to leave their religion/spirituality/whatever at home. But as you say...The key is to know when to draw the line between individual choice and societal enforcement of what should be an individual's choice.


YES! Excatly.

[dcnblus.livejournal.com]

Why must we have intelligent design and/or creationism taught in school biology classes?

Intelligent design is a concept that most rational, intelligent people will understand anyway, so it should not have to be taught. Most 6 year olds will ask "Why?" Eventually you get to a point where you can't answer why anymore. Two big questions in the realm of metaphysics are what was happening before the "Big Bang" and what is the smallest particle possible. The critical thinking necessary for "intelligent design" should be part of an underlying science curriculum, but is not useful just from a biology standpoint.

Creationism is certainly nice for a psycho-social standpoint, since it provides a nice easy answer to the classic question, "why are we here?" Its use has typically been as a literary device. And if you examine the "creation" stories of most cultures, they have very common themes. As such, creationism should be taugh in Literature class, not biology.

Is "science" not generally stuff that can be observed tangibly and measured?

Not entirely. Science is a process for making a guess and proving it. It's not just the tangible observations and measurements. Just ask Christopher Columbus. Consider - Antarctica was considered a continent long before anybody actually landed there...

Is creationism and intelligent design not a myth- or at most a hypothesis?

Creationism is a social construct used to placate the uniquely human mind. Most creation stories are myths, used to explain where a people came from. Granted, most cats and dogs don't really care where they came from -- they have their mommy and daddy and a survival instinct.

Intelligent design is the logical conclusion of the modern scientific process. Our experiments have given us all sorts of facts to get to a certain point of understanding... after that, we still ask "why?" Again, ID is just another easy way out to placate the human mind. As intelligent as we are, there must be something far more intelligent out there that created this; rather, if we were this intelligent, then we would understand it already.

How much does it really matter to the general public how the world originated?

In most cultures, it used to matter; to some degree, it still does. Cultural identity is predicated on the stories of the origination of the world. Christianity, itself, is predicated on the Genesis story. Certain Native American cultures (for that follow the old ways) are still is based on the stories of how the Black Hills formed, or how certain spirits came together to form the Universe.

"Origination" is far more of an undercurrent today than it ever was since few people actively wonder "where did we come from" too often. But it's still there. And it's part of what separates us from the kitties and puppies of the world...

Re: Multiple Issues

[saratoga80.livejournal.com]

>Belief in a higher power does not necessarily constitute "religious"

In the matter of public policy, that's a distinction without a difference.

>The Amishnare exempt from SS, but I don't remember the Mennonites being also (Minor point of detail)

The Mennonites, except those employed by non-Mennonite employers, are exempt:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0301802270
(I lived near a very large Mennonite community for a while in northern NY)

The Amish and Mennonites do pay all other taxes - along with a number of Old Order churches. They cannot receive social security, unemployment or similar payroll-based tax-funded programs.

-- Rich

Re: Multiple Issues

[fuego.livejournal.com]

The Amish and Mennonites do pay all other taxes - along with a number of Old Order churches. They cannot receive social security, unemployment or similar payroll-based tax-funded programs.

Yeah, I knew this. I'm from Lancaster, remember? heheh

It makes sense about the Mennonites too...I'm kinda surprised that I didn't know this really. PA has the highest concentration of Mennonites in the country, according to several sources that I've read (But not trhe highest concentration of Amish...that's either Nebraska or Ohio, I don't remember which)